‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Why I'm still bearish on LLMs after Navier-Stokes

496 points · 653 comments · jaykru

  1. keeda · · focus · HN ↗
    The premise in the very first point seems off:

    > the frontier labs are priced according to the narrative that they have produced or will in the very near future produce a fully automated drop-in replacement for most knowledge workers...

    Even assuming this is how the AI companies are being valued (they're not), the numbers are off.

    The "value" of most knowledge workers -- based on what enterprises currently pay for them -- is $50 - 70 trillion annually. It's reasonable to assume that if AI drop-in-replaced all those knowledge workers, AI companies could credibly charge somewhere in that order of magnitude, because that's what the market is already bearing.

    So if their hypothetical revenues are double-digit trillions and valuations are some multiple of that, the entire AI industry would be valued at double-digit trillions at the least.

    Yet cumulatively the industry (the frontier labs + the SWAG estimate of the AI parts of all the other players) are valued at, say, ~6 - 7 trillion? Which seems like a fair approximation of how much knowledge work they can currently automate.

    1. iron_albatross · · focus · HN ↗
      When thinking about these valuations, shouldn’t we try to quantify how much knowledge work becomes obsolete if other knowledge workers are automated? I.e. there are a huge amount of knowledge workers employed in businesses that create tools for other knowledge workers. AI won’t automate their work, those businesses will just cease to exist.

      And then there’s the second order effect: if all the knowledge workers get automated, who is going to buy the stuff that’s produced?

      1. credit_guy · · focus · HN ↗
        I think you are committing the lump of labor fallacy [1]. Lots of jobs will disappear, but others will appear. Lots of things (both intellectual and material) that are produced nowadays by humans will be produced in the near future by AI. But humans will be needed to do new things.

        Take the Hugging Face incident. Why did it happen? Because the people whose task was to set up a testing framework took shortcuts. Why did they? Because there weren't enough people who were assigned to do the job. Why not? Because the job is too new and not enough people are qualified to do it. It's a job that simply did not exist 3 years ago. But 3 years from now, this job might very well employ tens of thousands of high skill knowledge workers.

        [1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Lump_of_labour_fallacy" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Lump_of_labour_fallacy

        1. jnwatson · · focus · HN ↗
          Yes, think of all the new security engineers we&#x27;ll need!
        2. iron_albatross · · focus · HN ↗
          That’s fair. I guess I’m also thinking that whatever new kinds of intellectual work that arise from the introduction of AI could be also done by AI. But maybe this comes from a lack of imagination again.
        3. bluecheese452 · · focus · HN ↗
          There is no guarantee it will be humans doing the labor.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.